It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.
April 06, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt was a crazy week last week as the number of coronavirus cases in the United States jumped to 32,783 cases as of Sunday, from 3,680 cases, just a week before. In an attempt to “flatten the curve” and help those impacted by the virus, numerous federal, state, and local orders were issued, including orders requiring that residents “shelter in place.”
For businesses impacted by the “shelter in place” orders, which, in California, means virtually every business in the state following Governor Newsom’s state-wide “shelter in place” order, there’s been confusion as to who can and can’t continue to work under the orders including among contractors and project owners. Although things have been changing, sometimes daily, here’s what you need to know about the “shelter in place” orders:
The Local “Shelter In Place” Orders
On Monday, March 16, 2020, six Bay Area counties, and the City of Berkeley, issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents in those counties and city shelter in place except for “Essential Activities,” if performing “Essential Governmental Functions,” or if operating “Essential Businesses.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19
April 06, 2020 —
Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & BonesteelThe Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was signed by the President on March 18, 2020 and will become effective no later than April 2, 2020. The law contains numerous updates to the country’s employment regulations in response to the Coronavirus pandemic of which employers should be familiar.
Of particular note, the FFCRA makes limited amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now, pursuant to the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”) employees may take up to 12 weeks of family and medical leave after having worked with the employer for 30 calendar days if the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to the employee’s need to care for a son or daughter under 18 years of age due to the child’s school closure or unavailability of a childcare provider due to a public health emergency, i.e., COVID-19. Unlike the FMLA, which does not apply to many small employers, this requirement applies to any employers with 500 or fewer employees. No mileage radius requirement exists under the EFMLEA.
When an employee utilizes leave pursuant to EFMLEA, the first 10 days of that leave may consist of unpaid leave, but the employee may elect to substitute any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave, including the Emergency Paid Sick Leave provided for by the Act and described below). All subsequent days of leave taken by the employee after the tenth day must be paid by the employer at a rate of not less than two thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would otherwise normally be scheduled to work. The cap is $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com
Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses
May 11, 2020 —
Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply.
Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Perry may be contacted at
amp@sdvlaw.com
Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action
August 03, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer.
After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions.
The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor
February 10, 2020 —
Kevin Sullivan - Traub LiebermanNationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable.
In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Sullivan, Traub LiebermanMr. Sullivan may be contacted at
ksullivan@tlsslaw.com
Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues
April 13, 2020 —
Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-RecordConstruction at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, Calif., and Allegiant Stadium outside Las Vegas—two new NFL stadiums scheduled to open in 2020—continue forward despite a worker at each location testing positive for COVID-19.
Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds
February 18, 2020 —
Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law NewsThe United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds.
The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit.
The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit.
Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Charlson may be contacted at
Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com
Will COVID-19 Permanently Shift the Balance between Work from Home and the Workplace?
April 13, 2020 —
Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn March 15, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued formal guidance to combat the spread of the coronavirus by recommending against gatherings of 50 or more people for the next eight weeks (CDC guidance), which includes nearly every office building in America. Thus, began the most significant work from home experiment this country has ever seen.
With the majority of the workforce working from home, many employees see this as an opportunity to finally prove that, “yes, that meeting could have been an email.” However, while workers will not be distracted by constant (and potentially unnecessary) meetings, a number of issues and questions arise with working from home.
Most importantly, is this working from home experiment a temporary opportunity for businesses to test remote work ideas or is this the new normal? And how will this affect commercial real estate moving forward?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adam Weaver, PillsburyMr. Weaver may be contacted at
adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
